/gear/ - Gear thread

Reminder that if you don't use the gear thread your mother will die in her sleep.

>>3075237
>>>/b/

is there a knockoff teleconverter for nikon that wont fuck my shit up

>>3075271
The Tamron TCs are great for Tamron glass and Nikon glass, Sigma TCs are great for the compatible Sigma lenses because extended glass elements protruding towards the lens rear element. Kenko is mostly Tamron copy with worse coatings.

any fujifilm brahs here?

>>3075271
>that wont fuck my shit up
Teleconverters can't physicaly cut off your hands.

I currently have a Canon 60d and am thinking about selling it and buying the 5Dii which is around €300-400 more second hand. What should I take into consideration before doing this?

File: orange and black man.jpg (364KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1000x667px

I'm upgrading from a 450D when I get my neetbux, and it's hard to decide what to get. I'm leaning towards getting a 750D because it's not too expensive and would leave me more room to get glass. Is it worth it to go for the slightly more expensive Canon bodies in the sub $1000 price range? Would something like a second hand 5D mark II be a better investment than a new 750D?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 450D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:04 02:25:27
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3075311
Depends what's more important to you.
The 5D2 will make sharper photos with more pleasing oof areas, a newer crop body will give better af and better menus.

Personally for me image quality is paramount, so the 5dii would be my choice if I had to get a Canon body.

Complete newbie here: What's the difference in usage between a 16-50mm lens and a 55-210mm? Buying an a6000, but it's about 100$ to get the 55-210 lens with the standard kit.

>>3075312
Thanks for the advice. Sharp pictures are important, but I'm mostly shooting on the street, so there should be some merit in getting the better autofocus. I guess I'll try to get my hands on a few different things and see what feels best.

>>3075315
It'll give you more range to work with, obviously. $100 for some cheap zooming capability doesn't sound like too bad a deal. What do you want to shoot?

>>3075315
That 55-210 is soft at every focal range, don't do it unless you are okay with absolutely everything looking out of focus

>>3075321
I'm mostly interested in capturing the scenery and fashion of Tokyo. I kind of figured that even if I didn't get a ton of usage out of it, 100$ seems like a steal.

>>3075324
That's actually really useful, thanks. I'll probably just grab the kit lens then.

>>3075307
You should see what lenses you could buy instead of a new body. The 5DII is still capable but it won't give much more than the 60D you already have.

I think I'm going to buy a used a6000 with the kit lens because everything else that would be an upgrade would cost me more than twice its asking price and it seems good enough to start with.

Is there anything else up to 50% more expensive than a used a6000 that would make sense to get instead? DSLR are fine. The a6000 go for around $450-500 here for what it's worth while new ones are a hair above $600, but feel free to adjust for your local prices.

>>3075340
Nikon D3300, D7000, D7100
Canon 700D, 760D
Pentax K-S2, K-70, K-3, K-3II

>>3075326
The other guy is bullshitting you. Look up image samples from reviews.
http://lenses.reviewed.com/content/sony-e-55-210mm-f45-63-oss-lens-review

>>3075344
Fuck it, looks like it's worth 100$ to me

File: 1.png (73KB, 719x2181px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 719x2181px

>>3075340
>The a6000 go for around $450-500 here
Adorama has a shit ton of inventory they sometimes bundle in for free in their sales.

Practically every year around black Friday/christmas, they sell the thing for 400 bucks.

>>3075354
I personally would go for a body only and Sigma 17-70 and Tamron 70-300 instead. Dunno if available to E-mount or needs an adapter, but Sony kit lenses (normal and telezoom also) are notoriously bad, worse than decade old APS-C kit lenses from Canon.
Going with a DSLR like Nikon, Pentax or Canon with their native kit lenses would give you much better image quality for starters and more and better step ups for APS-C. Sony has no middle ground for APS-C or FF.

>>3075315
the first lens is like a standard zoom, good for general purpose, walking around and taking pictures of people or random shit. the second lens is a telephoto, for when you want to zoom in close but can't necessarily physically move yourself closer. Think like if you were at the zoo outside the lion enclosure, you wouldn't want to get in and shoot them @16mm so instead you shoot them @210mm.

File: FH000015.jpg (712KB, 1840x1232px) Image search: [Google]

712KB, 1840x1232px

>>3075356

Last year some place had it for $350 with a $50 giftcard.

I didn't even like Sony and I bought one.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-2000
Camera Software	FDi V4.5 / FRONTIER350/370-7.7-0J-060
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:28 18:50:25
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1840
Image Height	1232

>>3075356
That's neat, but I'm not in US so I'd have to pay $100 for shipping + customs.
>>3075342
Nikon D7100 has some good deals used(with more than just kit lenses) here. There's one with the 18-140mm lens I'd be tempted to get - but it's slightly out of my budget so I'd have to wait till next paycheck and it probably won't be available then. Between the D7100 and the Canon 760D which one would be more recommended? Going to look into some reviews now, but they have comparable prices at the edge of my budget. Canon doesn't have as many interesting deals with different lenses though.

Sadly, no one sells Pentax used here(literally not a single used body of any model you listed, while D7100 alone has like 20), and prices new are out of my budget.

For me, the a6000 overheating after just 12 minutes of video is a dealbreaker. I know I shouldn't expect greatness, but I can't afford to buy a separate video camera. That being said, is there anything in the same price range that can take pretty good video as well?

>>3075376
That only happens on some cameras. And usually it's because they use the high end firmware patched codec the camera isn't shipping with.

>>3075376

Update the firmware and it should be a little better.

Even so it is not good, if it is warm outside, you will overheat.

Is the sony a700 a decent camera? I was going to get a d3400 until my dad gave me this.

>>3075388
If you already have it just get a kit lens and start shooting. It is as good as any other entry body and will surely teach you about the basics of photography, exposure and composition.
Read Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson, watch youtube tutorials, shoot in RAW and learn to post process. Watch Lightroom tutorials on YT.

File: Screenshot_20170513-102735.png (552KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

552KB, 1440x2560px

Is the 16-50mm lens mentioned in pic related any different from the kit lens? It just seems too good to be true. If it's the same price as other sellers and they throw in a good amount of free shit, why wouldn't I buy from Adorama? I understand the customer service can be shit, but I'm willing to take the gamble.

>>3075426
That lens is the kit lens. I wouldn't worry about it, it's perfectly usable especially when you stop down aperture to F8 to get good depth of field.

And yes, I got one of those free bundles too when I bought mine.

>>3075426
It is the kit lens. It is worse than an ages old Canon aps-c kit lens, soft in the focus, CA out the ass even the in-focus areas.
It is much better to get a Canon or Nikon kit lens and use an adapter.

>>3075431
>It is much better to get a Canon or Nikon kit lens and use an adapter.
That's bullshit Anon. There isn't all that much difference between them. All you get is worse AF.

>>3075432
The old Sony NEX kit lens is better than that piece of shit and you know it.

>>3075434
That lens is just larger and more bulky because it can't collapse.

>>3075426
This one as well: https://www.amazon.com/Alpha-a6000-Interchangeable-Camera-16-50mm/dp/B00JMKHPPM/

Has a larger memory card, two batteries and charger.

>>3075392
Okay that's about what I was thinking. Thanks for the help!

>>3075434
Just keep in mind that I have a <800 budget and I've never had a camera that wasn't built into a phone. So it will probably be fine for me

>>3075435
>something is optically better than something other
>waah it's larger waah

Power zoom is the fucking worst for photos.

>>3075445
That's a terrible rule of thumb. There are many cases where the smaller lens Loxia 21 is 50% the weight of Milvus 21 and optically better in every aspect, measured by the manufacturer.

>>3075443
see
>>3075342

>>3075342
>forgetting the K5 II/IIs

>>3075461
There isn't that much point to slow dslrs anymore when mirrorless have surpassed them in AF technology now.

>>3075462
3x more shots on one charge, affordable mid-range lenses, affordable premium primes, userbase not consisting solely of cunts, etc...

>>3075463
Battery isn't an issue anymore. Mirrorless use microchips that use much less power than older dslrs as well.

>affordable mid-range lenses,
The Sigma APSC 30mm F1,4 mirrorless is actually cheaper and better optics than Sigma APSC 30mm F1,4 for dslr.

>affordable premium primes
Same story with Zeiss, the 21mm Loxia F2,8 is cheaper and optically better than Zeiss Milvus 21mm F2,8.

It's over Anon.

File: Capture2.jpg (144KB, 403x576px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 403x576px

>>3075462
>>3075463
professional build quality with weather sealing

also fuck captcha

>>3075465
You mean moving mirrors that break all the time, and moving shutter curtains that break all the time, and pentaprisms that collect an ton of dust all the time. Not very professional when you think about it.

>>3075466
mine never broke on any camera I owned and I have my fathers old russian SLR. The mirror is snug and in tact, not a single problem.
I heard mirrorless weather sealing lets in salt water from the users eye though.

>>3075467
Moving parts just break more easily. That's just how it is.

File: pigsoatsoriginal.jpg (211KB, 2048x1053px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 2048x1053px

Looking for some buying help.

Planning on buying a 35mm film camera in honor of my late aunt that used one to photograph nearly everything.

What are some good models? What's a good price?

I plan on taking pictures of daily activities and maybe some late-night pictures at the sky perhaps.
Budget is gonna be 500 bucks.

File: 137654875.jpg (174KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1024x1024px

>>3075466
>desperately grasping for straws
be careful sonygger, keep those tears of yours away from your delicate toy

>>3075468
Sony weather sealing doesn't move and it is broken from the start

>>3075470
>>3075471
And you wanted people to believe dlsr userbase don't consisting solely of cunts.Good job at failing that.

File: il_fullxfull.273017231.jpg (300KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1500x1000px

Hi. I'm not in any way a photographer, but I just got really interested in old film cameras for some reason.
Since I know this wouldn't stick as a hobby for too long, so I want to pick up some cheap camera and play around for a while.
There's a store near me that sells old Zenit cameras, those seem fun.

They've got 12 EA, EM, ET, and TTL models (they all cost about the same, roughly 20-40$). Are any of them worth it? I have no strong feelings towards either model, so any guidance whether which one is better and why is welcome.

>>3075374
I actually went to a store and took a look at the Nikon D7100 and Sony a6000.

I don't know if I underestimated how small the Sony is or how big DSLR are, but the size difference was pretty significant(particularly with the 18-105 kit lens on the Nikon).

Now I'm wondering if the added portability wouldn't be worth it after all because I'd be more likely to take the camera with me... but on the other hand I know myself, and I'd probably be more likely to actually use the bigger camera once I had it with me because otherwise I'd feel silly for lugging it around.

Decisions, decisions.

Best rig for run-and-gun documentary/military exercises? Really want something with good ibis and stabilized lenses, so I wouldn't have to worry about a glidecam (which I would bring) going through thick brush in other countries and deployments. Ideally IBIS with OSS lenses.

They give me two Mark IIIs to use, so instead of wasting money on my own camera, should I just invest in my own cine lens and build my Rig around the Mark III with magic lantern?

>>3075485
You put a decent lens on the Sony and it is just as big as a DSLR
battery won't last as long as the D7100 even if you put a grip on the Sony. Mirrorless being small is a meme, the short flange distance is about having better optical formulas at the ultra-wide end, if you want a pocketable camera get an X100T/F, X70 or GRII
If you want a good and cheap video camera get a Lumix G7 or G80/85

File: 20130717_112505.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

Hello, I have a Sony a6000 and a few consumer level alphas with lenses. Before anyone talks shit, I was always interested in photography since I was a kid and, to me, cameras are a tool intended for a job and I don't really care for brands as I do tools that get the job done. Unfortunately, I knew nothing about the Sony brand that would see my options limited in terms of 3rd party lenses, flashes, etc. Now, onto my question: I'm looking to sell off my Sony gear and transition into other brands that are more welcoming to the thought of 3rd party accessories. I am a bit more keen on gear these days, but I figured a could use a different perspective in my decision making.
Which digital camera would you recommend for a fund-deficient college student that hopes to get around 800-900 selling his gear?
Protip: I already have a Nikkor AF 28-105 f3.5 and a Nikkor AIS 50mm f1.8 (pancake lens) for my Nikon N80 that I use for film photography.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	SPH-D710
Camera Software	SPH-D710.FL24
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:07:17 11:25:04
Exposure Time	1/849 sec
F-Number	f/2.7
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	40
Lens Aperture	f/2.6
Brightness	8.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	3.97 mm
Comment	User comments
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	OEEG02

Someone tell me about the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 DI VC. Its only about 800 usd on Amazon and a lot cheaper than the Canon 2.8 alternative.

File: IMG_20170513_144249.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

le stovepipe

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Nexus 5
Image-Specific Properties:
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Color Space Information	sRGB
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Image Height	2448
Image Width	3264
Focal Length	3.97 mm
Flash	No Flash
Exposure Time	1/24 sec
ISO Speed Rating	1289
F-Number	f/2.4

>>3075340
sony a7 series

>>3075491
It's an excellent portrait lens, very good stabilization, weather sealing, sharp. I have the older non-VC version and it's a poremaster from f/4.

>>3075496
lol

>>3075498
what? you can find them for under $900 used pretty easily

File: Bildschirmfoto-2017-05-05-um-15.53.46.jpg (91KB, 700x432px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 700x432px

>>3075489
>Mirrorless being small is a meme
This is dishonest and deceiving.

Mirrorless can be smaller, just as large, or larger, it completely depend on whether the lens designer wants the lens to be large.

>>3075500
WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT SIZE DIFFERENCE! I CAN PUT IT IN MY POCKET NOW!

>>3075501
You can add obnoxious to your CV alongside dishonest.

>>3075501
>mirrorless is unquestionably, absolutely, objectively, provably smaller than dslr

>hurr durr mirrorless being smaller is a meme im a drooling slobbering retard durr

>>3075497
Cool, looking to get it to upgrade from my kit tele for sports, thanks kind anon.

>>3075500
Cute shop job

http://camerasize.com/compact/#682.647,624.656,ha,t

>>3075505
You will love it, mine works quite well with my 1.4x TC even with erratic movement tracking.

File: 2017-05-13-134421_760x408_scrot.png (252KB, 760x408px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 760x408px

>>3075508
cool site

but seriously mirrorless is obviously smaller. They weigh less. They are much smaller without the lens attached. You can easily carry a mirrorless in a pocket without the lens attached

>>3075523
Not him, but yeah, Mirrorless has the freedom to be anything: Smaller, Larger, whatever preference the designers target for.

>>3075525
Not only that, but repairing, maintaining, and calibrating mirrorless is easier than dslr. mirrorless has less parts to break and is therefore more reliable. Mirrorless will not ever have focus mismatch between the image sensor, viewfinder, and af sensor, while dslrs often will

File: 20170513_221630.jpg (284KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1280x720px

Why doesn't my speedlite 177A fit my Rollei 35?

I can't physically slide the flash into the shoe, it's too thick or something. Also, if i would be able to slide it in, I can see that the pins aren't going to line up, they're at different widths - see pic.

So, wtf is this? I'm very new to photography and gear etc, but I thought this was pretty much a universal system. Can I only use the speedlite on Canons, or is it Rollei that has made their own system?

I can't really find much info about this online, if anyone could shed some light on this i would appreciate it.

Also, how do flashes work in general? What exactly triggers it? Does the shutter release short the circuit basically, or is there some kind of message-passing between the flash and the camera? Come to think of it, there must be, because the flash automatically sets the shutter speed and aperture on my canon, but i don't really understand how.. what kind of communication protocol is used here? Anyone know?

File: sony_alpha_a99_ii_dslr_1474292731000_1282852.jpg (63KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x500px

I had written off the a99II when I saw the a7rII existed, figuring since it's cheaper, doesn't lose that 1/3 stop of light to the mirror, and the e-mount seems to have a brighter future.

Today I took another look at it and I'm wondering if I wrote it off too soon. I much prefer the form factor of it and the larger battery, and taking another look at the lens selection I think I like the native choices as much if not better than the e-mount stuff (mainly that Tamron SP 15-30mm.) Also I guess the higher frame rate is nice.

Any thought on the two?

>>3075523
>>3075525
>>3075527
Samefag

>>3075554
A99ii has better long range lenses.
A7Rii has extremely good wide angle lenses, and as you suspected, more to come as well.

I'm more on the E-mount side myself, because it enough for my needs.

File: 2017-05-13-160657_699x533_scrot.png (82KB, 699x533px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 699x533px

>>3075556
youre an idiot

>>3075554
whats the deal with AF on the a99 II? Keep seeing stuff about if you go too fast or stop too far down auto focus won't work.

>>3075490
Won't really get cheaper than the A6000 and it's many cheap 3rd party accessories and lenses (most of the latter are MF, but that is one reason why they are cheap - same as adapted older lenses).

>>3075554
Could surely be worth it if the lenses you need are better represented on the A-mount.

Then again, most of the potential lenses are just as well represented on Canon EF which even might have the overall more attractive migration path to Sony E (in case you want to move over later) by now.

I sold all my Sony full meme frame shit and bought a pentax k3ii plus lenses and some Fuji stuff. I love the Pentax more than I could ever describe. The image quality is amazingly sharp, the lenses are solid, well built, quiet, and inexpensive, but to top it all off, the build quality and ergonomics are second to none. Jesus it even has IBIS. The 100% coverage pentaprism viewfinder is just perfect, like everything else on the camera. Ricoh built such a nice camera and I couldn't be happier using it. I don't even care about no touchscreen or meme features, the thing is just so fucking amazingly enjoyable to shoot with.

>>3075604
Some of the meme brand lenses are just rebranded Tamron lenses, with higher prices. The (pen)Tax.

>finally upgrade to FF a7 ii
>take some good photos, mostly use auto
>import into LR, put best into collection
>no desire to tweak anything, try some vsco but hate the outcome
>thinking of just going into last import and grabbing the jpegs instead

How to cure ken rockwellism? I like the idea of raw but when it comes time to PP I don't know what to do anymore and have no desire to alter the image at all besides crop or sometimes tilt

I do apologise that this is probably a question asked a million times before.

But can I get recommendations of entry level amateur cameras, I've a budget between £200-£300.

Thanks in advance.

>>3075622
Do what you want, if you're happy with the jpeg

Anyone else get discouraged by how terrible the photos are for b&h lens reviews? Especially Sony lenses I've seen. Like are Sony lenses perpetually out of focus with shitty color rendition or does everyone who uses them suck? It's really confusing.

Is the a5000 a good camera to get for when you travel? I dont want to lug a big dslr around with me

>>3075604
what Sony did you have? If it was an a7, what didnt you like about it?

>>3075631
some sony lenses are very good. 55 1.8 FE Z for example. Also the 90mm 2.8 Macro

>>3075636
yes

>>3075443

Here is a review anon.
>http://www.kurtmunger.com/sony_nex_pz_16_50mmid344.html

Decide youself if it is acceptable.

Honestly it is a fantastic lens for the size alone.

>>3075490

>other brands more welcome to thid partt accessories

But Sony has the best third party support of all brands?

>>3075576
Because Sony has autism, and tries to do focus acquisition at stopped down aperture, meaning the AF sensor gets no light to do anything with.

is it worth it to rent a camera for like 10 days for a vacation?

>>3075490
Since you've already got Nikon lenses you might as well stick with them. For APS-C the D7000 and 7100 are good values right now. If you want to go turbo-poorfag the D300 is coming down near the $200 mark, and it's solid up to about iso 1600 and built like a brick shithouse.

If you want to keep the 35mm feel of your N80 I'd check out a D700, your 50mm will sing on that camera. It's old, but still a cult favorite camera for good reason.

File: 1469259883972.png (82KB, 594x595px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 594x595px

>>3075631

>>3075702
Go look at the B&H reviews for any of Sony's fast primes. Like 80% of the shots are soft and the colors are just fucking weird, I want to say anemic but really it's just "off"

>>3075631
>>3075704

It is more of B&H being terrible.

Like, lets look at the latest E-mount lens.

>http://photo.yodobashi.com/sony/lens/batis28_135/

Looks fantastic to me.

>>3075705
why is 135mm the golden focal length for sharpness?

the 135 f2L is stupidly fucking sharp

70-200's are best at 135

that batis

>>3075708
Telephotos tend to be easier to design with a flat field of curvature and a high degree of sharpness. Look at the Nikkor 105/2.5. Simple and excellent.

>>3075708

This is the review I am currently masturbating to.
>http://photo.yodobashi.com/sony/lens/sel90m28g/index_e.html

It is on sale for $900, I might pick one up.

>>3075712
god damn shit like this really makes me want to buy a 135 f2 or that a7rii.

i'm having a hard time rationalizing spending that kind of cash on a hobby even though money isnt really an issue

>>3075723

Lets be honest, $4k isn't really all that much on equipment that will last you for years to come.

The lens will last you forever if you take care of it. The body 5-10 years.

I had trouble justifying the body though, I went with the a7ii and regret it. Not because the a7ii is bad (it isn't, it is awesome), but because the a7rii is just that much better.

Used om-d em-1 and olympus 25mm 1.8 for 350$

yay or nay

I'm relatively new. I used my brothers d7100 for a long time, but I'd like a more casual walk around camera.

>>3075737
That's a hell of a deal. Get it.

>>3075234
Why is the K-P such a piece of shit? Why couldn't they have just made a K-3 III instead?

>>3075748
K-letters are experimental stuff
K-numbers are the proper lineups

new aps-c flagship is coming later this year

File: .jpg (112KB, 560x560px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 560x560px

I've just thought of something. There were like 3 cases of FE 70-200 zooms snapping in half or something. Couldn't they have just added in like 3 long steel rods going through the long outside casing of the lens to keep it from breaking? Like fuck even 1 2mm steel rod would add a ton of structural integrity. What I actually wanted to ask if the GM 2.8 might have the same issue.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 6
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto

>>3075751
Get the Tamron G2 version. Cheaper and sharper.

Going to pick up an a6500 and Rokinon 12mm tomorrow so I can fap to my gear furiously for the next fortnight and maybe take some pics

>>3075773
One of those is for sure, and it is not the taking photos.

>>3075686
Could easily be worth it if you like having and editing good photos with a lot of details.

If you just need "some" images for a brief moment of nostalgia later on, a smartphone or sports camera or such might also do the trick.

>>3075731
You could pretend you saved some money toward getting the A9 soon.

>>3075723
Of course. No mere mortal (wealth wise) can throw thousands of dollars at just anything they fancy haphazardly.

But if you know it's one of your main hobbies, then what are else you going to do here? Use much worse glass and bodies?

Or hope that in under ten years, you can get used or equivalent gear for 1/4 of the price or less (which hasn't always been the case, especially for lenses)?

Can't decide between the Nikon D7100, D5300, and D3400/3300. Buying used/refurbished. Also open to other suggestions in the same price/performance range(60/70D, t6i, t5?)

Mostly looking to do motorsports, street, landscape, and occasional low light/night time shooting. Not a complete beginner, but it's been years since high school when I was using early 90's film SLRs.


>>7100
Can use older AF lenses, best AF of the three, more rugged body, feature rich. No wifi without adapter, no 1080p60 video
>>5300
Articulating screen, better AF than the 3400
>>3400/3300
I'm cheap as fuck

>>3075751

From what I hear, while it is possible to split in half like that, it does take quite a bit of force.

The new GM 2.8 is a completely different design and doesn't have that issue.

>>3075797
D7100 or Pentax K-3/K-3II

>>3075797
> other suggestions in the same price/performance range
Sony A6000.

> occasional low light/night time shooting
Spend more on a decent FF camera if you want to do this, unless you mean you are going to do it with a strobe or long exposures on a tripod.

>>3075791

>pretend you saved some money towards the a9

Nah, not interested in it honestly. I want that ridiculous high resolution sensor on the a7rii.

Hoping I can find a refurb or used a7rii cheap sometime soon.

>>3075797
Get the 7100, it'll be cheaper in the long run than buying a new body in a year or two when you get sick of entry-level bullshit. Also it has the best viewfinder by far, I'm pretty sure it's the same 100% as the D300 instead of a shitty, dim little pentamirror finder.

>>3075841
> a7rii cheap sometime soon
A *lot* of people would like that.

Which is why it's not likely to happen at all any time soon -even Sony releases a better high resolution IBIS camera or two there probably are still people who don't own anything nearly as good and would like to upgrade. [Never mind Sony doesn't compete much with itself, they just increase the price on every generation now that they've essentially won.]

>>3075843

It has been as low as $2,100 before.

$1,800 is my trigger point.

>>3075846
What the fuck. Why didn't you just buy it then?

300 bucks isn't worth it if it's used already.

>>3075850

Cause I missed the sale. T.T

It is back up to $2,400 now.

>>3075846
> It has been as low as $2,100 before.
If that was the case, there apparently were not *anywhere near* enough pieces sold that the price for the A7R II would be even close to that now.

> $1,800 is my trigger point.
Sounds like a 3-4 year wait to me. There are surely still plenty of people willing to pay some sum >$2k at this point.

>>3075852

>3-4 year wait

About what I expect. I did just buy an a7ii a year ago, no need to buy a new body today.

>>3075855
I guess you're more patient than me. I'm also not planning quarter to quarter only, but 3-4 years gets into "pretty significant fraction of remaining life" territory.

Pretty much decided on a Nikon D7100.

Going to buy used, the cheapest option is going to be getting it with the kit 18-105 lens. Is it decent?

It seems to be a reasonably popular camera, so I got some other options, few people are selling it with the Sigma 17-50/2.8 instead for a hair over $100 more, and some with the Nikkor 18-140 in between those two prices. Plus some random more obscure options but usually more expensive.

Any of those seem like a good/bad idea or should I just get what I think I'd get the most use of?

>>3075852
The a7r has halved in price since it came out, the great thing about sony is how their bodies don't hold their value like say a d800, so everyone can afford the best body they can.

>>3075866
I would go for the 18-55 VRII kit lens bundle instead, it is a very capable lens. The 18-105 is more of a superzoom, soft at both ends and in the corners at every focal length. Not a stellar lens.
Or getting body only and a Sigma 17-70 or a 17-50/2.8

>>3075836
>>3075840

I'll check those out. I'd like a full frame, but unless going much older they're a bit out of my price range for a body And yeah, I meant long exposures.

>>3075842
That's why I wanted it, but the lack of 60fps at 1080p is a bummer

>>3075863

My last body went 6 years, and it was an entry level APS-C body.

The a7ii currently does everything I NEED it to do, though I would LIKE it to have higher resolution and better low light performance.

File: 07.jpg (106KB, 960x639px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 960x639px

>Sony

>>3075871
You definitely don't need a full frame. Lenses are bigger, heavier and more expensive than the aps-c equivalents, just check out the pentax da line. The 50-135 is a 70-200/2.8 equivalent and small, light and costs as much as a Tamron 70-200.
Current aps-c can do anything a FF can lighter and cheaper.

>>3075878
The 50-135 on crop resolves less than half as much detail as the tamron on ff. Not to mention the stop better low light performance and more aesthetic bokeh.

And no, ff doesn't mean it all has to be bigger and heavier, the canon 70-200 f4 L is over 50g lighter than the pentax 50-135 and is physically smaller, despite having a wider focal range. The f4 on ff still has better low light and more bokeh than 2.8 on crop and is exponentially sharper. Oh, and it's cheaper.

Crop is a meme.

>>3075875

Depending on how the tethering app is, that could be a lot of fun.

>>3075880
>sonyggers believe this

>>3075867
That trend seems to have slowed or stopped with the recent more balanced E-mount cameras that are good almost across the board.

Sony has sold better E-mount cameras at a higher price to essentially completely avoid competing with itself and seems to continue that trend with the A9, so it appears to have worked just fine for them.

>>3075899
As usual, no rebuttal. Well memed friend

>>3075901
>Sony has sold better E-mount cameras at a higher price to essentially completely avoid competing with itself and seems to continue that trend with the A9

To be fair, the a9 doesn't really compete with any other e-mount cameras, and is considerably cheaper than its competitors offerings.

>>3075878
> The 50-135 is a 70-200/2.8 equivalent
It's better than the A6000 kit 55-210 and given how people still like that one I can understand how the 50-135 is very well liked.

But it's not nearly a match for a 70-200 GM on a FF Sony.

>>3075906
>But it's not nearly a match for a 70-200 GM on a FF Sony.
Yes, I agree in that. The 50-135 doesn't break in half from just looking at it, doesn't suffer from decentering from poor quality control, is not as soft, and costs literally a fourth of it. It is really a one sided match.

>>3075912
>doesn't suffer from decentreing
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/44900-another-decentered-50-135-a.html

>doesn't break from just looking at it

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/194486-da-50-135-sdm-failure-how-much-repair.html

>not as soft
sonys GM resolves up to 38Mp on an a7rii
The best lens pentax have on dxo resolved 13Mp on a K3, that's 3 times as sharp images from Sony!

>sony costs more
I'll concede on this one, if you can't afford Sony, you can get inferior alternatives.

>>3075912

You are confusing the GM with the G.

>>3075797
If you're really cheap go for the d7000

I've been using a Sigma lens for a few years now and i've been happy with the results.

I dropped the lens and now the zoom is jammed and the manual focus doesn't work but auto focus does...

Repair doesn't seem like a good use of time, as i'm worried the repair will fail later on and the cost will be similar to a new lens.

I was using a Sigma 18-250. Should I just buy the same lens again or is there a better alternative? I don't really like the look of the similar Tamron.

>>3075920
>sonys GM resolves up to 38Mp on an a7rii
>The best lens pentax have on dxo resolved 13Mp on a K3, that's 3 times as sharp images from Sony!
Awesome, you have no clue what conclusions you can draw from dxo!

Typical retarded sonynigger

>>3075968
Dxo doesn't test Pentax, they just upscale old results from 10MP old bodies. Somehow all the lenses I own has way worse scores then they actually perform. Dxo is a scam.

>>3075987
That's just not true. The lens/sensor combos are tested thorougly each.

If they were just upscaled calculations, it wouldn't have taken them over a year to retest all the Canon lenses with the 5DSR body.

Secondly, combos that are not tested are simply not available. Like the A6300, no lenses has been measured on it, nor the A6500.

>>3075791
You know what, fuck it. Gonna try to get an a7rii and sell my a6300 later. My birthday is in like a week.

What's the best affordable (~£50) half-frame camera? I've been looking at the Olympus Pen EE but a lot of them seem to have broken light meters.

Does anyone know how often the Flashpoint speedlights(godox) go on sale on adorama? Saw there was a sale in April and was curious how long it could be till the next one.

what lens / editing combination will make my photos unique technically? so far ive seen cinema lenses, rhino medium format mounts to stitch a bigger picture, etc
I want my photos to not just be good based on subject and composition alone, but if someone was at the exact same time and place as me was unable to physically take the exact same picture
is there a wiki or a site somewhere that documents all the crazy experiments photographers did over centuries?

>>3076032
panasonic gh5
:^)

>>3076032
Just use a lightmeter app or use sunny 16

>>3076073
I already have a GH3 ;__;

>>3075751
There were a lot more than 3 cases. I fix these things several times a week. I will say, having weak points is a good thing. Only 2 parts need to be replaced to fix that. And the parts arent even that expensive.

That lens is also insanely sharp, especially at 200mm

is the sony a5000 a good camera?

>>3076110
No.

>>3076019
Yea. It's a luxury, but waiting isn't going to achieve much until years later when the next shiny thing is already dangling in front of your face.

>>3076035
Why would we know?

But generally you have the option to just import them from HK or mainland China or something, despite the fat shipping fees it doesn't usually get much cheaper than that.

>>3076110
It's a fairly good value camera under when you consider those under $1k including lens. But not a great camera in the absolute sense.

>>3076110
Its better than a phone camera
Its better than a point and shoot

Image quality is as good as any aps-c dslr

Its part of arguably the best ecosystem of mirrorless cameras

So I would say yes.

>>3075697
Thanks for your help! I'll consider the D700 and look into options for a D300.

>>3076134
Looks like you never actually used a camera before. The A5000 is terrible to use. No viewfinder, no control wheels, everything is fucking menu diving in the most counter intuitive menu system ever designed. This last part is true to all Sony cameras, they just can't figure out how to design a usable camera.

File: 1489659981282.png (324KB, 494x484px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 494x484px

>When you see a great deal on a used body but the Ebay seller site is in goddamn German so you have no idea if it's so cheap because it's in shit condition
Why is it always the fucking Germans?

>>3076161
Run through automatic translation & problem solved.

Alternatively, learn german.

>>3076110
It's decent but you're better off getting something with a viewfinder like the NEX-6

>>3076166
Or the A6000. Also a fairly serviceable APS-C camera.

>>3076032
Don't worry homies I picked up a Pen EE.S for £16 off ebay.

File: 2Ml9USDEJ68.jpg (90KB, 604x459px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 604x459px

Oh man, I just bought an A6000 body only for €419, and I know that it isn't a particularly impressive camera but I'm so hyped because I'm a poorfag and had to sell my old D3200 a while back, and I bought the NEX-3 with the 18-55 kit lens to use temporarily but that camera is barely worth using over my smartphone.

Inb4 lel you fell for the meme, it's got everything that I was looking for that I didn't have in my D3200, video recording in 1080p60, Wifi transfering, charging the battery via USB, electronic viewfinder and just so many usability improvements that you really miss when using a Canikon camera after you're used to using your smartphone.

File: 61H3bTomI-L._SL1500_.jpg (105KB, 1001x1001px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1001x1001px

Opinions on these for off camera flash for wedding reception and backlight balancing?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B015ZALVI4/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_.2mgzbEG3QTN0

>>3076185
YN660 is the newer and somewhat better electronics.
I use Godox TT600 and there are a few of these cheap manual flashes, all of them are good for what they are. i did on-camera lighting for a few portraits, makes a big difference when you are the one controlling the light.

Upgrading to a new camera, should I get the D750 while the sale is going on or a Sony A7ii? Already somewhat invested in Nikon system (50mm, 35mm 1.8 and 70-300mm lenses).

>>3076197
If you already have Nikon lenses go with the D750. It is a good camera.

>>3076180
>I know that it isn't a particularly impressive camera
The problem is it is impressive. Especially at that price.

The sensor is good, but Sony needs a mk2 update with the shell with better interface and 1 more dial or something.

>>3076196
Perfect. I have the stands already, but need to pick up a couple cheap neewer 47" soft boxes for them. Thanks for the input

>>3076202
A handful of BBQ skewers and some white fabric will do nicely. I used an A4 copy paper folded and stapled as a soft dome on a portrait shoot. It worked quite well, maybe a third more stops of light taken compared to normal softboxes.

>>3076201

They need to add two dials and stuff a ff sensor inside of it.

>>3076185
> wedding
YN660 for sure. You need the extra power.

Actually, bring a Godox Wistro AD600 too (or comparable flash plus external power pack).

You kinda want even more power and TTL whenever possible.

>>3076211
no, whole point of a6xxx series is to be flagship ***APS-C*** model. Adding more dials is welcome, but FF cameras would be a7, a9, something like that

Do Sony cams produce less heat in 1080p? I just found out it's really easy to extend the recording time past 30 minutes on Sony stuff, but I'd worry about a heat shutdown in that scenerio, but I only needed the extended time in 1080p

Is a sony A7II worth getting at this point?

>>3076300
I think a 7r/s III refresh is around the corner, and the a7ii is kind of the worst of the bunch if you want to use AF canon glass.

if you just want a fool frame camera for manual focuses lenses, its not bad. Kind of high price for a manual focus only camera though.

>>3076303
...There's no AF on the A7II?

>>3076304
There is, but its weak compared to the a7rii or a6300/6500

>>3076261
Every camera produce less heat in 1080P.

File: TS560x560.jpg (51KB, 560x420px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 560x420px

Is the 80-200 2.8 still a quality lens for modern FF bodies?

>>3076308
>>3076304

I own an a7ii, and i have to agree.

The AF isn't bad like on the a7, but it isn't blazing fast. I never find myself thinking, 'holy shit this is slow'. But sometimes I do catch myself thinking, 'I wish this was just a tad bit faster'.

It varies heavily by lens too. My 35mm f2.8 is lightning fast no matter what, but my kit lens can be difficult at times.

Best comparison would be a6000 I guess.

>>3076321
I've seen more videos of EF->E on the a6000 and it looks beyond unsuable to me, the a7 is probably better but not by much. I'm hoping I can sell my a6300 to put towards an a7rii.

why the fuck does the A7SII only have 12 Megapixels?

>>3076324
nanomachines will perform the best in ISO the bigger the pixels are per the full fram sensor.

>>3076323

Oh, I was talking native lenses.

a6000 doesn't support adapted autofocus.

On the a7ii the adapted lenses will be a similar speed to native lenses.

I've been using the amazon basics tripod for a while now. What's the best bang for buck thing I could get? I would like if it wad fairly portable as well.

>>3076340
I'm a big fan of Vanguard as a budget tripod brand. Only problem I've had is I stripped out one of the friction locks by tightening it too much. It was an easy fix/plus a handy excuse to get the heavier head I had wanted.

http://www.vanguardworld.us/photo_video_us/products/tripods.html

>>3076343
Oh, and I did that after about a year of pretty heavy useage.

So I'm thinking of swapping from fuji xt1 to sony a7ii. Is af performance comparable? Or should I just go with xt2/xt20/xpro2? What about video on the a7ii, is it usable? I have a few lenses for fuji and I'm really pleased with all of them. It's always a huge hassle to build a system you like, and there doesn't seem to exist a comparable lineup for the sony, tho I could go with cheap adapted glass for a while.

Honest question, I'm not trying to start a flame war here.

>>3076345
>Honest question, I'm not trying to start a flame war here.
Honest answer:
rent one for a week. We don't know your preferences, what "feels" right to you, what your workflow is, what your expectations are, what your use case is, etc.

It'll cost you about $200 for a week (body+lens), but that $200 could either keep you from making a 10x more expensive mistake, have you thinking you can't make the switch soon enough, or something in between, but it's damn sure better than anything any one of us could tell you.

>>3076317
It's ok. Soft around the edges wide open, so don't go around doing landscape. Center's good, better stopped down. Great for ball sports since you're likely to freeze action and turn off VR anyways. Focus speed depends on body, so you'll want atleast a D7000 tier body. Dat old nikon build quality tho, you'll never stop fondling it.

>>3076345
Do you even know why you want to switch?

I have an A6000 - if i want to do Documentaries\Testimonials, should i get an external recorder?

I like photography a lot but my passion is shooting and editing video. Canon, more specifically EF Lenses are all over the field. Should i start investing in to more canon lenses? anyone with an EF->E adapter have any issues? or Should i start investing in to FF E mount lenses in hopes of eventually upgrading to an a7r2 or a7r3 (it's about time for a new model soon)

Are there any good AF adapters for Nikon to E mount? I have like 3 nikon lenses.

if i'm not a movie guy, but wanted to do shit like documentaries, is it even worth owning a RED eventually? - They seem to just keep getting cheaper, i know the dragon sensor in the cheaper raven is shit compared to the a7r2 but the newer ones are on par if not better) or do i just stick to my DSLRs until they become crazy cheap or another decent competitor comes around? I mean even Youtubers own them for literally just youtube.

>>3075356
It's an excellent starter camera, i love the fuck out of mine... It's no a7r2 but i also paid 1k for the camera + 18-55 + 50-200 (like 3 or so years ago)

>>3076347
Thanks, that is probably the best way to go... I'll try to find a place to rent gear in this shithole of a country.

>>3076350
Several reasons. The main reasons being that video on xt1 sucks, no usb charging, meh af and I want back into the fool frame game (I know its a stupid reason). I have lot of vintage lenses and they serve their purpose best on 35mm frame imo. And sharpening xtrans files is annoying. 24mpx fuji or a7ii would fix many of these.

I mainly shoot nature, interesting (to me) shit I find walking around and some events/people sometimes. Favourite fov being 24, 35 and 85 mm eqv.

>>3076367

I figure it would be worth it just to get away from x-trans.

Though switching to the a7ii would be more of a preference thing. It is better, but not out of this world better.

I'd say save up for the a7rii instead. All but the most diehard fuji fan will easily fall in love with it. You can aleady get a grey market body for around $2,400.

>>3076340
Sirui T004x. Excellent build quality and warranty, comes with a short and normal column so you can drop the camera to almost ground level if necessary. Folds up to 41cm so very portable

>>3076197
35mm is apsc, so junk
Not worth sticking with an inferior system for a shitty super zoom and nifty fifty.

Go sony, I never regretted switching.

>>3076261
No one wants to watch half hour scenes buddy.

>>3076300
Yup

>>3076303
Adapted canon glass works as well.on the a7ii as it does on the a7rii.

>>3076308
This is incorrect

>>3076321
Kit lens has a slow af motor

>>3076323
The a7 af is junk, the ii is the same as the a7rii.

>>3076324
Because it's a video camera

>>3076325
No, it's so you can do a full frame readout with no binning or line skipping.

>>3076345
Af is great, eye af never lets me down, even on people wearing specs. What focal lengths do you need? What's important to you in a lens?

>>3076360
If your passion is video, why are you asking about af? Use cine lenses or old manual focus lenses on dumb adapters.

>>3076367
24mm is lacking in options, but the 28 f2 is great. Sony will be bringing out a ~20mm this year.

35mm, you have the tiny f2.8 and huge f1.4 from sony, my choice has been the tiny 1.4 from voigtlander.

85mm there's the 1.8 and 1.4 from sony, the 1.8 batis and 2.4 loxia, so loads of options that all perform fantastically.

Bought a secondhand Samsung NX300M with an 18-55 kitlens on it for €200 a few months ago. Paired with an M42-NX adapter, I love buying vintage lenses at flea markets and shooting with them.

Do any of you do the same?

File: display2.jpg (304KB, 1000x501px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1000x501px

>>3076415

Yes, but I use an a7ii.

I picked up a Techart Pro and it works great.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1000
Image Height	501
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	200 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:11 19:10:55
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	501

>>3076201
Is the sensor better or worse than in the D3200?

>>3076429
I was really happy to find two old Zenit cameras for €2 each, both came with Helios 44 lenses.
Is the TechArt Pro an active converter? Mine is just a lens holder.

How much does the Sony 18-55 kit lens suck anyways? I want to upgrade to the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 with the MC11 adapter but money is tight, does the Sony kit lens perform better or worse than my old Nikkor 18-55 kit lens?

>>3076453
Oh yeah, and I have an A6000

>>3076449
It's the same sensor.

Sony has the advantage of evf, size, flange distance, better rear screen, video and isn't purposefully gimped.

>>3076453
The sony kit lens is fine as long as you apply the lens profile and you have good technique.

>>3075311
The 750D is newer than the 5DII and therefore it is better.

>>3076458
The 750d is junk consumer trash.

>>3076350
>landscape
>wide open
Lol what? Have you ever done landscape, ever? You want to use the best sharpness of any lens for landscape, so generally f/8 or more. Nobody cares about IQ wide open for landscapes, you fucking moron!

>>3076462
Lol, no.

Most modern lenses hit peak sharpness between f5.6 and f7.1, and with landscapes with good lenses, this is done for the dof, not just sharpness. And there's loads of times a shallow dof can enhance a landscape photo.

You moron, I fail to believe you fuck.

File: DSC_0002.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

So /p/ anyone else ever get their tripod covered in salt water

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Sony
Camera Model	E6853
Camera Software	32.3.A.2.33_0_f500
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:15 19:59:04
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.23 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3840
Image Height	2160
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

Hi team, I was wondering what is the best choice in low budget telezoom lens. I am searching for a lens which cost around 300 €. I had in mind the tamron 70 300 IS, it was a great option three years ago, but i dont know if there is a better and newer option, as canon 50-250 IS STM.
I have a Canon 750d, with APS-C sensor and STM focus, but i would like to use the lens with my 35mm film camera too if possible. What would you tell me? Thanks

>>3076485
my 70-200 F4 L cost less than 300 eurobux

>>3076490
70-200 f4l non-is owner here. Fucking love this lens. Best part of my kit at the moment.

Can you use the full frame e-mount lenses on the a6500?

>>3076496
Yes.

You can also use some APS-C emounts lenses on Full Frame emount cameras, but with some vignetting and some soft corners. It depends on the lens model, some are more suited than others.

>>3076496
yup, but you will get SHIT autofocus unless you get a sigma mc-11 or late metabones, the more affordable viltrox/meike adapters are horseshit.

>>3076499
You didn't read his post properly.

FF E-mount lenses are 100% compatible with A6500 and other APS-C emount.

I got a nikon 55-200 non vr for 15 euros did I do good

File: _MG_0048.png (1005KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

1005KB, 1024x1024px

Hey, Anon! Show us your most aesthetic gear, won't you?

What would you pay for a used Pentax K-50?

$600 /with a bunch of gear I wouldn't want.

http://www.kijiji.ca/v-camera-camcorder-lens/stratford-on/pentax-k-50-with-external-flash/1219546280?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true

So why do people meme about Sony cameras, and especially the A6000? Good luck finding a camera that's better than this for less than a thousand bucks. The only valid argument is that it doesn't have as many lenses as Canikon but that all comes down to your individual needs.

>>3076584
Sorry, but I take photos WITH my camera, not OF my camera.

File: 1493602094891.gif (1MB, 259x282px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 259x282px

>>3076615
come ooooonn

>>3076617
kys

>>3076584
qt.

>>3076584
nobody cares. saged

>>3075234
which lens for m43: PanaLeica 15mm f1.7 or PanaLeica 25mm f1.4? I think I'd have more fun with former and get more use out of the latter, but some reviews say the Olympus 25mm f1.8 is close in performance to the PanaLeica 25mm and is $200-300 USD cheaper

I intend to buy one of them for an upcoming trip to New Orleans and elsewhere in the American southeast

File: IMG_20170515_142354.jpg (410KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 1600x1200px

>>3076584
I finally have all my cameras together in one place again and I want to show them off.

>>3076656
>no sony
shameful display

File: 1487529154113.png (177KB, 487x615px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 487x615px

Help me with this /p/, noob here
I want to buy new camera for video, I'm between the SONY a6000 and the LUMIX GX85. The thing is, the LUMIX has IBIS (which is really useful cause my hands are kinda shaky) but the SONY has a bigger sensor (and I think, better image quality, but I don't know for how much).

Btw I'm using vintage lenses, I don't know if that matters.

File: 1475524095237s.jpg (6KB, 231x250px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 231x250px

I am a total fuckin gear newbie, but i just got back into shooting film, mostly b&w for now. I have a Nikon F75 with a kit lens. Should i get a 50mm as soon as possible? what gear should i look into?

>>3076660
>better image quality
For stills, yes.
But the Panasonic has better video codec.

Think of the A6000 as a competent all rounder,
11 FPS high quality stills,
Decent video codec for 1080P, but not the best.

Whereas the GX85 is specialised for very good video, but will have less detail in stills, and less low light capability.

>>3076660
Sony overheats in 4K, G85 shoots indefinitely (at least the non-cuck US version)
Sony has very limited OS lens selection, G85 can shoot with OS and IBIS combined.

>>3076664
A6000 doesn't even have 4K.

>>3076665
And yet it still overheats. Shame.

File: please_kill_me.jpg (69KB, 338x316px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 338x316px

>>3075541

No one?? How can no one know anything about flashes?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:02:03 11:40:13
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	338
Image Height	316

Is there any good cheap alternative to the Lensbaby Velvet 56 that achieves similar dreamy results?

And speaking of "creative" lenses, are there any old fun characterful lenses that are worth checking out?

>>3076674
Helios 44-2

File: 1404155125000_1062086.jpg (45KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x500px

Which one has better value? One of these inserts that I can carry like a lunch bag... or a dedicated camera bag like the $40 National Geographic ones?

I'm just looking to carry
>Fujifilm X-E2
>XF 18-55mm
>Rokinon 12mm
>Two batteries

>>3076713
I have a Natgeo messenger bag and a Lowepro Flipside backpack. Both are great.
Especially the Natgeo which I got for 2 britbongs on ebay.

>>3076717
Do you have the specific model number for the NatGeo one?

>>3076718
It is the shoulder hangy type. Smaller than the bigger one.

>>3076718
>>3076719
Ah, found it, W2140 Walkabout Midi satchel
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/611029-REG/National_Geographic_NG_W2140_W2140_Walkabout_Midi_Satchel.html

How many is too many shots when buying used? There's a nice Nikon D7100 available right now with the 17-50 2.8 Sigma for a steal, but 35k shots.

>>3076407
>If your passion is video, why are you asking about af?
Cause i also do photography?. I've been using a dumb adapter, but nothing hits that comfy of AF on a quick shoot

>>3076722
35k is not much. Those shutters are rated for 150k to 200k and most pros who go over that limit don't report on failing shutters.
In theory the timing can drift after extensive use but that wouldn't bother any hobbyist because you can easily correct exposure in post. But this can only happen over 200k.

>>3076722
If it's a brand you know without having to look anything up, assume a lifespan of around a quarter million actuations before it'll likely need to be replaced. Definitely a YMMV thing because a studio only body will likely see it's shutter last far longer than one carried by someone who saw no problem with wandering around on the beach without a lens on and no body cap for hours at a time a few times a week.

>>3076726
Hey, I like to take a walk out in nature, down at the river, in the forest and hills. But I have a Pentax.

>>3076734
The important part of that is being in a dusty environment with the internals of the body unprotected by anything for a significant amount of time.

Even cheap ass consumer level cameras aren't so delicate that being carried innawoods is a problem if you're not an asshat and you take marginal care of your gear.

Sony A7s II or A7r II, snapshitting and video

>>3075480
You should give it a try. It's obviously not the best film camera, but for that price it is just great.

Helios-44, the lens that it usually comes with, is a sweet one. Its swirly bokeh is quite fun.

what's a good dedicated flash for sony a6000?

File: pj650.jpg (394KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 2500x2500px

hey guys im a spillover from /o/ ive just recently started recorded editing and sharing car related videos from going to local car meets ive self taught myself the editing and general dos and donts when recording parked and moving supercars but my biggest obstical right now is my video quality

my camera was a gift from 2012 and only does 720p video max and imo my videos are just not as good as they coild be because of it. ive done a lot of research and the camera that i would like to upgrade to that i may someday reasonably afford is a hdr-pj650 and maybe an external rode shotgun mic for the acceleration and rev shots as cars leave the show

are there any other options in the same price range i should also be considering? should i just not buy a newer camera at all and focus more on improving my camera skills? would a full hd video equate to more views on youtube or would it be smarter to get better at sound and editing and see if the views increase that way?

>>3076796

gh5.

>>3076656
fuck this is autistic in so many ways

File: shill cheatsheet. do not steal. .png (363KB, 2317x1370px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 2317x1370px

>>3076813

>>3076817
christ that cx455 is like double my budget

>>3076813
I'm going to get shit on for this, but the DJI Osmo Plus:
http://store.dji.com/product/osmo-plus
Here's our favorite asian doing a review of the regular Osmo 4k:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diZNWXE-yqU

My reasoning is that one of the bigger differentiators for the kind of video you're doing is actually getting stabilized shots for like walking around a car and getting shots from car to car. There are also car mounts that can get you some other interesting options as far as composition goes.

It's not the best video camera out there. It's not got the sharpest lens, but I think it's good enough for what you want and provides stabilization that's far outside of your budget otherwise.

If you are wanting to capture sound too, you'll need an external mic and recorder (which is best practice anyway).

>>3076831
i currently use a sony handycam sx-85 that i do all my filming with and mount on my own cars exterior using a delkin fat geko that works ok, my issue is that i cant clearly capture the brilliance of a supercars paint or even the weave of carbon fiber on supercars without being fully zoomed or right up on them audi also just doesnt have the same roar or boom that it does in person


i want to be able to see the reflection of clouds on a cars paint or have really crisp clear image quality while i pan on my tripod while a car flys by doing a rolling burnout

ive gotten good at keeping still while filming car walk-arounds by walking slow and using my tripod then speeding up in edit

also im poor so cheaper is always better

>>3076837
I still stand by my rec and add in that sounds more like a technique problem than a gear one.

>>3076840
would the pan controls be fast enough to capture a car flyby?

>>3076842
Pretty sure it's not. You can, however, use it to make a slower pass look faster by panning against the direction of travel. I'll also point out that while you have it mounted outside of a car, you can control it from your phone.

File: eos-7d-3q-675x450.jpg (162KB, 675x450px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 675x450px

Hey guys, I own a 7D, it has like 40k shots and I was thinking of selling it just to buy another camera with the money and try another canon camera. Wich one would you recomend?
I was thinking of a Rebel t5i.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:09:29 11:00:48
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	675
Image Height	450

>>3076850
Who in their right mind would downgrade from a 7D to anything less than an 80D? The rebels are all garbage and you should know that.

>>3076853
how about a 70D? The fact is that I can't put more money that the amount I would make with the sell. I would talk about dollars but I don't live in america and prices are different here.

>>3076856
...why? As in what benefit do you expect to get? What functionality do you expect to gain that you're missing from your pro-grade slightly older body that you'll find in a prosumer grade slightly newer body?

>>3076850
all the canon cameras are basically the same, don't sidegrade or downgrade, just upgrade

>>3076648
and the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 is near the Olympus f1.8 and can be had for half its cost (and a quarter of the cost of the PanaLeica 25). I'd just get that and the 14mm pancake if I was you.

and from what I've read, the only Panasonic x Leica MFT lens that is truly worth the extra cost is the Nocticron 42.5mm f1.2, but that $1400 USD price tag is pretty fucking steep (the recent 12mm f1.4 PanaLeica had gotten similar near unanimous praise as well, and shares the 42.5's bloated MSRP)

>>3076861
>>3076860
well, I get that. But at the same time I feel I could use other functionalities that the 7D lacks, like the fact that you can't connect your phone to it or a camera with better video functions or the fact that at high ISOs the 7D doesn't perform well and it only goes to 6400 ISO

>>3076880
>>3076850
Sell the 7D and get a 6D

>>3076880
The phone connection thing kinda sucks. It's a pain in the ass to get connected and laggy.

>better video functions
What is Magic Lantern for $100 Alex?

>High ISO on Canon
Son, I got some news for you: High ISO is garbage on essentially every Canon before the 80D, and I say this as someone who shoots Canon.

If you want high ISO performance, you really do need to jump ship.

>>3076670
for one flash, systems are not universal, different voltages could fry your camera and your flash so be careful

also from what i can tell the contacts dont align perfectly

>>3076891

got it. So I guess I'm stuck with my 7D. I find that my photographs are not sharp enough with the 7D specially at high ISO it gets fucked.

Also magic lantern isn't free?

>>3076899
>got it. So I guess I'm stuck with my 7D. I find that my photographs are not sharp enough with the 7D specially at high ISO it gets fucked.
Pretty much unless you're going to jump ship to someone with a sensor that's better at high ISO. Spend some money on lighting (yongnuo speedlites are a great budget option for stills) and learn to use it so you don't have to rely on high ISO.

>Also magic lantern isn't free?
It's free...that was a gameshow reference.

File: flowerz.jpg (1009KB, 1459x969px) Image search: [Google]

1009KB, 1459x969px

Dear /p/,

Please tell me how to spend my money. As you can see, I have an NEX-3N because I didn't know whether or not I'd like photography when I started out, but it turns out I do. I want to get something that will allow me to take pictures that I haven't been able to take yet, but I'm not sure if that means I need a new body, lenses, or both. I'm pretty sure I want to stay in the Sony family of cameras, and while I was set on going FF earlier, I'm not sure about that anymore, having looked at the a6500 anymore. I saw some anons earlier circlejerking to 135mm lenses, would that be a good investment? The only prime lens I have is an Opteka 6.5mm fisheye, which is fun, but ultimately not hugely useful.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-3N
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	51 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4912
Image Height	3264
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:15 22:05:43
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Brightness	3.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Shade
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	34.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1459
Image Height	969
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3076903
>Spend some money on lighting (yongnuo speedlites are a great budget option for stills) and learn to use it so you don't have to rely on high ISO.

What makes you think flashguns are viable options for his photography? You don't, because he never mentioned if he does portraits, weddings, sports, landscapes, street, etc.

>>3076976
You know, it's kinda like he was given a viable solution for if they are viable (Yongnuos) and if he absolutely can't light (get a camera with better high ISO performance)!

Hi I take a lot of low light street photography and am disappointed with the results I am getting.

I have a Sony a6000 with a 2.8 19mm fixed lens which I usually use. I also have a old Canon ASPC SLR with a 50mm 1.8. The 1.8 gets really aesthetically pleasing photos but the 50mm plus ASPC crop factor means I have to be really far away for photos of people unless I only want to do portrait.

Wondering if it's worth getting a 24mm 1.8 lens for my Sony for around $1500 or a used full frame Canon SLR like a 5d mkii for 1k and make the 50mm less "zoomed in" until I can afford a 35mm 1.8 or even 1.4 lens.

Anyone who shoots low light street have thoughts?

>>3076930
Why don't you get a fool frame? Do you like APS-C?

>>3076880
My camera has a much more modern sensor and I only let it go over ISO 3200 when absolutely necessary. Fuck readout noise, the sporadic photonic noise and tiny DR is still there.
Don't worry about your sensor, if it has some noise just fuck it, if the subject comes out nicely then it is good. Some people even put noise in during post. The 7D UI, AF system, build and ruggedness is much more important than marginal improvements and features you will never use.
Spare yourself the headache, go out with your camera and take photos.

>>3076994
What is disappointing? Noise? Blur? What?

If it's noise than maybe you might need a low megapixel full frame. If it's shake then maybe a fast and wide lens or a lens/camera with stabilization. If you don't want to spend money then you can try some techniques like self-timer or learning to edit your images.

>>3077029
Low resolution != better low light performance.

It used to, when the pitch between pixels was larger, now it's insignificant.

If you want to measure the width of a pencil and you only have a standard kids ruler, do you get a more accurate ruler or do you get more pencils, record the width of all together and divide by the total?

gonna be picking up a Sony a6500, coming from a canon 6d. would it be better to keep the 24-105 L to use with metabones speedbooster or get Sonys 16-70, meaning I have the same fov. I've seen the he internet say that lens isn't that sharp, but honestly neither is the canon. This is just a hobby for me but not one where I feel like I need the batis primes.

>>3077272
The native lens will have more AF features, and better Video AF.

>>3075234
Why do you rarely see negative reviews of lenses in blogs/YouTube? literally everything gets at least a 4 out 5 or whatever scale is being used

>>3077371
How many truly bad lenses are made nowadays? At worst, it's a kit lens, or is the wrong lens for a given application.

>>3077371
Because most lenes including the budget ones are more than decent and do their job quite well.
In some of the rare cases some more honest reviewers do list the shortcomings and even give harsh critiques like with the new Sony 70-200.

>>3075234
Anyone here have bad experiences online with Best Buy, specifically letting you order something they don't have in stock? I'm looking to buy a particular lens that is backordered at every other site I checked, including the manufacturer's e-store, so I'm a bit leery about pulling the trigger

>>3077371
Amateur reviewers are reviewing the lens because they bought it. They'd feel stupid if they bought something shitty, so they want to believe its excellent. So they see what they want to see, and sing the praises of their purchase.

Bloggers and youtubers are using this as an income stream. They shill, because shilling keeps sample products coming in to review, and drives more ad revenue to their blogs and videos. If they posted a review saying "This lens is shit", their free stuff would stop coming.

>>3077390
depends on where you draw the lines between "bad", "mediocre", "good enough", and "excellent".

Best everyday Nikon d7100 lens for a beginner up to around, I dunno, $500-600 new? Cheaper if it's new/obscure cause I'm planning on buying used.

>>3077448

The new 35 1.8 FX. It'll be a nice normal lens for your D7100, and a high quality wide angle lens if you get a full frame camera down the road.

I would also recommend a 50 1.4, which will be sort of long on your crop body, but generally great otherwise.

>>3077463
Sadly the 35 is only available new or just slightly discounted used, so it's more or less out of my budget. I'll keep an eye out though.

I could swing for the 50 1.4, but I'm thinking it would make sense to get the 50 1.8 instead to get a feel of what I want and then upgrade - it's dirt cheap and probably would be easier to sell as well.

>>3077390
>How many truly bad lenses are made nowadays?

An easy indicator is if the lens manufacturer's name begins with an S.

>>3077476
I'm not the other guy however the 1.8 is my go to on my D7200 for walking around and for portraits, I am getting hungry for a 'real' 50mm equivilent but I've gotten so much out of the 1.8 over the last few years.

>>3077525
>>3077476

I'm the guy who recommended the 35 1.8.

I had a 50 1.8 that was practically married to my D300 for 8 years. It was perfectly serviceable, but the image quality is only so-so wide open, and it's a little cramped for indoor shooting. The new 50 1.8G is supposed to be way better. I haven't tried it yet, so I can't speak to its quality, but the 35 1.8 is a knockout lens. If you want, you can also scrounge around for the 35 f/2 Ai-s. It's a manual focus lens, but it's got almost legendary image quality, it's compact, and only goes for ~$300 used.

>>3075541
>Can I only use the speedlite on Canons, or is it Rollei that has made their own system?

Hot shoes are generally universal, but there are some differences.

I can't secure my 430EXII on my Nikon D1 because they made their hot shoe out of a thicker gauge steel.

>>3075554
The a99II is made in Japan.

>>3075622
What's wrong with large jpeg?

I personally hate PP and just use a camera that gives me great results natively.

>>3076161
Buying a Sigma?

>>3077501
Sigma?

>>3077544

Seiss.

>>3075344
You clearly haven't actually taken photos with that lens

>>3077544

Sigma, Samyang, Sony.

Schneider doesn't count because it begins with a Sch-.

>>3075875
does it have focus peaking on the app?
what about olympus air

>>3077527
I wouldn't call my 35/2 legendary. It's good, especially for the era, but you still have to stop down to f4 for sharpness across the frame on the 36 mp bodies. Somewhat visible softness at f2 in the center. Certainly better than the 35/2D.

File: Intro[1].jpg (512KB, 2048x1587px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 2048x1587px

I am going to try to get into photography again after a long time being a hikkiNEET. I had an old Canon, but I sold it a few years ago. I was looking at an old Sony a900, but I think I should get a newer camera instead. I don't want to go full mirrorless because I fell in love with the idea of using the cheap classic Minolta lenses and I don't want to deal with/pay for one of those finicky adapters. I am looking at the Sony a77 II. Am I fucking up?

>>3077558
Go ahead, senpai.

Do you like the aesthetic of the Minolta lenses or just the price?

>>3077555

Maybe you didn't get a legendary copy. Does it have a star stamped on the filter band?

File: NeZv2XX.jpg (1MB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1067px

>>3077390

It is rather rare now-a-days. It is mainly just cheap kit lenses.

Even terrible lenses are okay when stepped down.

The most notable bad (as in DON'T BUY EVER) lenses released over the last few years have been mirrorless.

Sony has two. The 16mm (soft as fuck) and the FE 50mm (turtle slow autofocus). Their APS-C kit is also looked down upon, but it is at least sharp and compact as hell. Without a lens profile applied it will make you puke though. Sony also has a habit of making their mirrorless lenses absolutely huge.

Fuji also has some bad lenses. Their 18mm has slow as fuck AF (the slowest lens I have ever used, you'd be better off doing manual focus without focus assist) and terrible sharpness. Their 35mm f 1.4 also has sharpness issues until stepped down (might as well buy the superior 35mm f2), and super slow AF(which has been improved through a firmware update but still not ideal). A lot of Fuji's 'fast' lenses are also pretty much unusable wide open.

>>3077562
Both the aesthetics and the price. They're often cheaper than the modern Sony/Zeiss counterparts.

>>3077569
They do have a certain charm to them.

I always liked the looks of the Minoltas and the Nikkor D line.

What features are you looking to get in the a77 II that you wouldn't in the a900?

>>3077577
Using SD cards instead of CompactFlash, the ability to record video. I might still buy the a900 and then pick up an a77II later. The a900 can still be found for pretty cheap.